Glad they’re taking off the gloves a little, but it’s always been a non-option to just make our lives significantly and irrevocably better like M4A or the PRO act and although they’re good at trying and failing, they never talk about the consequences as dire as they actually are with few exceptions.
What, are you going to vote for the guy who will put his knee on your throat and murder you? No, of course not. You should vote for not that, because not that will not do that and if someone else does, they will glare disapprovingly from a safe distance, secretly appreciating that it isn’t them being murdered.
Democrats. We’re not actively evil.
Simpsons in 1994:
That’s an inspiring bumper sticker. NOT.
Unfortunately, it seems to be the entire Democratic strategy since 2000.
Goes way back before that. Carter was unable to get the DNC leadership support for budgets or reforms. And Carter was barely left of center. In fact, Ted Kennedy challenged him for the presidential nomination in 1980, with Kennnedy running as a more liberal candidate. Kennedy lost, of course, and then Carter lost to Reagan.
If it gets really bad, Chuck Schumer will write a stern letter and Cory Booker will, like… stand in one spot for a long time talking about stuff.
Except they are actively evil they don’t just ignore Republican actions it wasn’t like Biden was looking the other way when murder by police officers was reaching record highs and Israel was commiting a genocide with his support or Obama was looking the other way when millions are violently deported and many others blown up at weddings by drone strikes. They commit plenty of active evil themselves.
The real travesty is you only have 2 options, they’re both not very good and the entire country is polarized around one or the other.
I think the Europeans were on to something with MMP. My country adopted it in the 90’s and finally ~30 years later we have a 3 party government (previous max was 2).
It helps with preventing one party gaining absolute power and also gives citizens more realistic options at the polling booth
And yet, if I have a choice to be policed by Chauvin or Thao, there is no question that I choose Thao.
Yes, the ultimate goal is to deprive both of these men of their power. But for that to happen we need Chauvin to take his knee off our neck.
This is barely a metaphor by the way. Since Trump pardoned Chauvin and the Democrats didn’t.Evidently I must have been thinking of another pardon.No you need the guy with the camera to set it down and throw a fucking Molotov.
Become ungovernable. We already live in a police state.
Becoming ungovernable is not incompatible with voting though. And again, will be easier without a knee on your neck.
Tankies here are ultimately the meme they post about the dems preventing a shift back left with how they discourage voting.
Removed by mod
Voting is one part of building our movement and achieving goals. Tankies discourage that and keep us from moving left.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Its very privileged to abstain (which is just getting out of the way and not having urgency because you’re not affected)
You know we need to destroy the power of both
Of course. And my belief is that neither voting nor abstaining from voting for anyone is going to achieve that.
However, it may make the task easier or harder.
yeah the other option is revolution, and with that it’s still not guaranteed you end up with what you want when the dust settles. Good chance China or Russia will take advantage and jump in and fill the power vacuum in the US when civil war happens.
There’s another real possibility.
History seems to be repeating itself. Right now the U.S. is in the “Germany in 1933” phase. If we don’t deal with the situation ourselves then it’s possible that a coalition of other countries could do the job for us, in which case “innocent” Americans will be nothing more than collateral damage.
Who knows how much the world’s Nuclear arsenal will change the situation, but if any regime in the last 100 years is stupid and pig headed enough to try and win a thermonuclear war… that’s possibly why he says so many stupid and out of pocket things- to convince people that is definitely an option.
Revolution is so far away in the US I think it’s just an unserious idea at this point, and it has a poor track record in history anyway. Personally, I think political organizing outside of the parties is the best model, then use that organized power to disrupt the status quo and demand concessions. Syndicalism, basically, but it doesn’t need to be only at the workplace. Shut down roads, block police from going anywhere, etc. Anything you can. But there needs to be a large constituency that supports these actions first. How to build that is an important question.
These things have a way of happening suddenly, once the Tipping Point arrives. Nobody foresaw the fall of the Soviet Unions and the Iron Curtain. Sure, it seemed inevitable at some point, but when it happened, the world was shocked by both the suddeness that it happened, and the speed at which it progressed.
NOBODY in the entire world woke up that morning, thinking that the Berlin Wall would come down by the end of the day.
trump hasn’t pardoned chauvin from my research as a note.
He’s garbage and his entire administration is collectively like Darth Vader huffing spray paint.
You’re right I must have been thinking of someone else.
In case you choose Thao you get same course but in slow pace. The whole Trump thingy just accelerated things and showed the real faces of current politicians not only in us but worldwide
If you do nothing other than voting, then maybe. But I’m saying voting is just a small part of a larger overall strategy. And the non-voting actions are how things will get better.
This is largely how we got the new deal. Roosevelt was forced to adopt a lot of these programs by the organized demands of the labor movement.
That’s a nice false dichotomy you made there.
How is it a false equivalency?
False dichotomy, not false equivalency. Two different things.
Right here is the false dichotomy, considering the context of the comment this was written in reply to (the one by meatbridge) being a metaphor for voting, equating Chauvin to Republicans and Thao to Democrats.
You frame it as if we only had two choices. Which is verifiably wrong.
If we are talking about voting in U.S. federal elections, voters only have two choices. Third party candidates can not win with the current structure. If all states switched to ranked choice voting, and if states divided House seats by percentage of voters per party instead of winner-take-all for each gerrymandered region of a map, THEN there could be more than two options. I would like to see that happen.
You are correct that 3rd parties can’t win. But how is voting for either of the other two options winning? I’ve seen both in power for the last few decades, and it’s a shit-show either way.
You may not like the other options, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.
Removed by mod
Because the goal of voting is to influence governance. It is not an end unto itself. Yes, you can vote for other parties. You can also vote for Donald Duck. It just has no effect.
In terms of which party will govern, there are two options. Choose the one you despise least. And then do whatever you think is necessary to end the duopoly outside of the general election.
Well, what I think is ncecessary to end the duopoly is to show both of them that I’m not going to vote for either of them, until one of them starts to do what I want. And voting 3rd party sends a signal as to what policies they should adopt if they want my vote.
Nice story bud. Too bad it’s full of shit.
You are trying to bring emotion to a math fight. Third parties will not be able to win under the current system.
Depends on the party.
The Guillotine Party can succeed where every other party had failed.
deleted by creator
BoTh SiDeS
Are you saying I’m saying that, or are you mocking people who say that?
Removed by mod
First comment I see today and not a wall of text is a word salad 🥗
The irony of using terrible grammar to complain about word salad
You got the point… That’s all that matters!
Fair point!
Although I was very confused about the “wall of text” part, considering how short the preceding comment was…
Occasionally, you might not understand what someone is saying or satirizing as you aren’t familiar with their style or substance. And that’s fine. So is admitting to it in a comment! But doing it so dismissively is rude, and paints you as an *80’s teen movie bully
Notice they also admitted that they can’t read “walls of text” either so this is just the modern generation of “just put the [THING] in the bag” and “I ain’t readin all that” mentality that spending more than seven seconds of attention on something is “cringe.”
We probably deserve the coming apocalyptic horrors being spawned by man and nature alike.
Makes sense to me, it’s even punctuated accurately and effectively outlines the premise of the meme. It’s just a sentence you have to slow down and turn off your “internet scroller” brain for a moment and use your “communication” brain.
If you can’t understand them, thats on you.